V E L SOFTWARE LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02

430 dated 27-03-2015, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: “It is not sufficient that the identity of the share applicant or the creditor should he established for the assessee to discharge the initial onus, which is upon the assessee. Under the requirement of Section 68

AMIT SURESH AGRAWAL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2225/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Amit Suresh Agrawal, V The Income Tax Officer, Amit Trading Co, Plot No.35, S Ward-2, Satara. Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Abgpa2925D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Advocate Revenue By Shri Eknath Abhang – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 02.04.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

430/-, is erroneous and unsustainable. The impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 27th August 2022, is void ab initio and bad in law, having been issued in violation of the mandatory monetary threshold prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, and is therefore liable to be quashed

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 r.w.s. 115BBE; and (d) not allowing set off of profit on trading in derivatives against brought forward losses. 3. That the order dated 15.05.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action

SWATHI KEWAL NEMMANIWAR,KINWAT NANDED vs. ASST. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

430/- by the Appellant, under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned Authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.51,50,000/-, under section 68

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act should have been applied in this regard and the decision of the Ld. AO to not draw any adverse inference about the substantive loan of Rs.3,37,65,561/- was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3.5 The assessee filed her detailed reply to the show cause notice issued

CRYSTAL GLAZING & CLADDING,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

430/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was selected for 3 ITA No.93/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee failed to respond to the said notice(s), however

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry

INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJIKARANJI, KOLHAPUR vs. SPLICE BIOTECH PVT LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

430/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,16,28,954/- by holding that the transactions of purchase of shares of the scrip S. K. Stock Dealers Pvt. Ltd. and subsequent sale is nothing, but a bogus transaction by relying upon the investigation report

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. HEMANT BAGAREDDY MOTADOO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

430/- less TDS amount of Rs.1,33,243/-. Further, on account of failure of the assessee to deduct TDS on the payment of security charges to M/s. Shani Security & Allied Services, the Assessing Officer disallowed further amount of Rs.1,15,275/-. 4. The Assessing Officer similarly made addition of Rs.26,38,500/- by invoking the provisions of section

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

430 as mandatory jurisdictional pre-condition and therefore, the impugned reassessment proceedings and the consequential reassessment order may please be quashed. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. BEEKAY ENTERPRISES,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the legal ground taken in the assessee’s cross objection which goes to the root of the matter is allowed and the ground on merits therefore, becomes academic in nature

68 & 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4) The Ld. CIT(A)-7, Pune, ought to have dismissed the appeal of the assessee by recognizing the principle that if any expenditure (including purchases) is proved to be bogus under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the provisions of section 69C does not permit allowing partial expenditure. 5) Whether

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2354/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kothari Agritech Private V The Dcit, Limited, S Circle-1, Solapur. 3Rd Floor, Sunplaza, 8516/11, Subhash Chowk, Murarji Peth, Solapur North, Jawaharlal Nehru Vastigrah S.O., Solapur – 413001. Maharashtra Pan: Aadck8017H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 19.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

68,05,430/-. The Assessee’s case was selected for complete scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee’s Authorised Representative appeared before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s.14A of Rs.22,81,994/-. The Assessing Officer in para 6 observed that Assessee has paid Commission of Rs.3,47,91,082/-. Assessee was asked to produce confirmation from

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

430/- 2007-08 4,68,70,038/- 3,05,21,570/- 5,25,63,342/- 8,30,84,912/- 2008-09 4,33,70,594/- 84,09,110/- 6,03,87,245/- 6,87,96,355/- 3.1 The additions made by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A are as under : A.Y. Additions @ Non-genuine Disallowance Disallowance

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

430/- 2007-08 4,68,70,038/- 3,05,21,570/- 5,25,63,342/- 8,30,84,912/- 2008-09 4,33,70,594/- 84,09,110/- 6,03,87,245/- 6,87,96,355/- 3.1 The additions made by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A are as under : A.Y. Additions @ Non-genuine Disallowance Disallowance

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

430/- 2007-08 4,68,70,038/- 3,05,21,570/- 5,25,63,342/- 8,30,84,912/- 2008-09 4,33,70,594/- 84,09,110/- 6,03,87,245/- 6,87,96,355/- 3.1 The additions made by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A are as under : A.Y. Additions @ Non-genuine Disallowance Disallowance

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

430/- 2007-08 4,68,70,038/- 3,05,21,570/- 5,25,63,342/- 8,30,84,912/- 2008-09 4,33,70,594/- 84,09,110/- 6,03,87,245/- 6,87,96,355/- 3.1 The additions made by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A are as under : A.Y. Additions @ Non-genuine Disallowance Disallowance

ITO, CENTRAL,, AURANGABAD vs. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue as well as assessee for assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

430/- 2007-08 4,68,70,038/- 3,05,21,570/- 5,25,63,342/- 8,30,84,912/- 2008-09 4,33,70,594/- 84,09,110/- 6,03,87,245/- 6,87,96,355/- 3.1 The additions made by Assessing Officer in assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A are as under : A.Y. Additions @ Non-genuine Disallowance Disallowance